this is bbc news. the headlines at eight. in a test of support for president trump's supreme court nominee, brett kavanaugh, us senators narrowly back a motion to advance his nomination to a final vote. on this vote, the no‘s are a9, the motion is agreed to. a man who pushed a 90—year—old passenger onto tube tracks in central london has been found guilty of attempted murder. the government faces criticism for not alerting mps to problems in disposing tonnes of medical waste and body parts despite convening an emergency committee to discuss it last month. it's irresponsible that the health department and the environment agency still haven't told us the full facts about what on earth is going on, on an issue where environment health questions are being raised and we still don't know the full fact. it's completely unfair on the local community. and still to come in the next half hour — one week after an earthquake and tsunami hit the indonesian island of sulawesi, hundreds

of people are still missing. the death toll stands at more than 1500, but there are fears more than a thousand people could still be buried under mud and rubble. a u—turn for unilever — the consumer goods giant scraps its plan to move its headquarters from the uk to the netherlands. and before nine on bbc news — we'll take a look inside henley halebrown‘s chadwick hall in london, one of six contenders to win the royal institute of british architects‘ most prestigious award —— the riba stirling prize. the appointment of president trump's controversial nominee for the us supreme court, brett kavanaugh — is in the balance tonight.

earlier today, the us senate narrowly backed a motion to take a final vote on whether he should get thejob. 49 senators voted against the motion — and ifjust 2 others join them in the vote tomorrow — then judge kavanaugh‘s appointment will be defeated. a small handful of key senators have still not made public how they intend to vote. last night, more than 300 people were arrested while protesting against judge kavanaugh, who denies historical claims of sexual assault by several women. and there have been more protests today. well, a little earlier, our correspondent, gary 0'donoghue — who's on capitol hill in washington — told me that tomorrow's crucial vote looks to be on a knife—edge. it's about as close as it gets. that's the way the senate is at the moment in terms of the balance of

power. what we've had today is two votes, one from each side, flipping. 0ne democrat voted for the procedural vote to go ahead, a republican voted the other way. a 5149 split was maintained. however there are still some people within those numbers who have not absolutely confirmed how they will vote on the real thing itself. here is dianne feinstein, a senator on thejudiciary is dianne feinstein, a senator on the judiciary committee. here's is dianne feinstein, a senator on thejudiciary committee. here's what she thought about today's proceedings. judges are expected to be quote evenhanded, unbiased, impartial and courteous. however, at the hearing last week, we saw a man filled with anger and aggression. judge kavanaugh raised his voice, he interrupted senators, he accused democrats of lying in wait, and

replacing an advice and consent with search and destroy. he even went so far as to say that doctor ford's allegations were nothing more than a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fuelled with pent up anger about president trump and the 2060 election. —— 2016. revenge on behalf of the clintons, he said. how could he? this behaviour revealed the hostility and belligerence that is unbecoming of someone is seeking to be elevated to the united states supreme court. there are a number of undecided still, as i mentioned earlier, susan collins from mean, we're expecting her, a republican, to announce how she will vote on the final confirmation. we're expecting her to say that within the next hour. there is alsojeff flake, he

triggered this extra enquiry by the fbi by withholding his full backing for the process. he hasn't definitely said one way or another. the indication from him earlier on was that he would be a yes when it comes to the final vote. there is another day to go before that absolutely happens. stuff is still up absolutely happens. stuff is still up in the area including one senator who is trying to attend his daughter's wedding in montana tomorrow and be here to vote. this has divided down the part lines. here is mitch mcconnell, the republican leader of the senate. the ci’oss republican leader of the senate. the cross rounds up and go round there and partisanship has blown strong these past weeks. they have harmed a good man and his family. they have tarnished the dignity of this institution. but all of it can end today. the time has come to vote. this is the threshold of a golden

opportunity. we have the opportunity to advance the nomination of an incredibly well—qualified and well—respected dualist who demands such excellence. we have the honour to put him on the supreme court where his distinguished service will make him and our nation proud for years to come. but we have the opportunity to do even more. today we can send a message to the american people that some core principles remain unaffected by the partisan passions of this moment. facts matter. fairness matters. the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. kabir also hearing there is one democrat senator who might not be able to make the vote tomorrow as well, part of the consequence of having to schedule

this thing i weekend. we don't know who that is at this stage but there may be a possibility of hearing them off with the guy who needs to go to his daughter's wedding. you can see the ins and outs of the process. it is still an eraser edge. —— a razor. we arejust is still an eraser edge. —— a razor. we are just waiting mentally hear from susan collins. let's go to capitol hill, this is the senate room who are we expect, we are hoping susan collins is addressing and perhaps learn more about why she plans to build the way she will tomorrow. expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate galleries. the senator for maine. mr president, the five previous times that i have come to the floor to explain a vote on the nomination of a justice to the

united states supreme court, i have begun my flora remarks explaining my decision with the recognition of the solomon h and the importance of the occasion. —— solemn nature. but today we have come to the conclusion of the confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional it looks more like a caricature of a gutter level political campaign than a solemn occasion. the president nominated brett kavanaugh onjuly nine. within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organisation that didn't even bother to fill in the judge's name on its

prewritten press release. they simply wrote that the opposed donald trump's nomination of x, x, to the supreme court of the united states. a numberof supreme court of the united states. a number of senators joined supreme court of the united states. a number of senatorsjoined the race to announce their opposition but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee's identity was even known. since that time, we have seen special interest to grips with their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about judge kavanaugh's judicial record. 0ver falsehoods about judge kavanaugh's judicial record. over the top

rhetoric and distortions of his re cord rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony of at his first hearing produced short—lived headlines, which although debunked hours later continued to live on and be spread through social media. interested groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination. every supreme court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. one can only hope that the kavanaugh nomination is clear that the process has finally hit rock bottom. against this backdrop it is up to each individual senator to decide what the constitution's advice and consent

duty means. informed by alexander hamilton's federalist 76, i have interpreted this to mean that the president has broad discretion to consider it a nominee's philosophy, as my duty as a senator is to focus oi'i as my duty as a senator is to focus on the nominee's qualifications as long as that nominee's philosophy is within the mainstream ofjudicial fort. —— thought. i have always opposed this with respect to their personal views are politics. but i fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. i've never

considered the president's identity ora considered the president's identity or a party when evaluating supreme court nominations. as a result, i voted in favour ofjustices robert and another who were nominated by president bush. 0ther justices and another who were nominated by president bush. 0therjustices who we re president bush. 0therjustices who were nominated by president 0bama. and justice research who was nominated by president trump. —— justice gorsuch. sol nominated by president trump. —— justice gorsuch. so i began my evaluation ofjustice justice gorsuch. so i began my evaluation of justice kavanaugh justice gorsuch. so i began my evaluation ofjustice kavanaugh by reviewing his 12 year record on the dc circuit court of appeals including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. 19 attorneys including

lawyers from the nonpartisan congressional research service brief to me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judges extensive record. i met withjudge kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. i listened carefully to the testimony of the committee hearings. i spoke with people who knew him personally, such as condoleezza rice, and many others. i talked withjudge condoleezza rice, and many others. i talked with judge kavanaugh a condoleezza rice, and many others. i talked withjudge kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. i also have met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents,

regarding judge kavanaugh. 0ne concern that i frequently heard was that the judge would be likely to eliminate the affordable care act's vital protections for people with pre—existing conditions. i disagree with this contention. in a dissent in seven sky, judge kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the hca on procedural grounds preserving the law and fell. many experts have said that his descent informed justice robert's opinion upholding the aca at the supreme court. judge kavanaugh's approach towards severability is narrow. when a part of the statute is narrowed on

constitutional grounds, he has argued for disabling the invalid clause as surgically as possible. while allowing the overall law to remain intact. this was his approach ina case remain intact. this was his approach in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the consumer financial protection bureau. in his dissent, judge kavanaugh argued for severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact. given the current challenges to the aca, proponents including myself of protections for people with pre—existing conditions, should want a justice who would take just this kind of approach. another assertion that i've heard often is thatjudge

kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the president where to come before the president where to come before the court. the basis for this argument seems to be twofold. first, judge kavanaugh has written he thinks congress should enact legislation to protect residents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. mr president, i believe they miss the mark on this issue. the fact that judge kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the president does not have such protection currently. second, there are some who argue that given the current special counsel investigation, president

trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. that argument ignores our recent history. president clinton, in 1993, nominated justice ginsburg after the investigation was already under way and she was confirmed 96 to three. their next year, just three months after an independent counsel, robert fisk was named to lead the investigation, president clinton nominated justice breyer. investigation, president clinton nominatedjustice breyer. he investigation, president clinton nominated justice breyer. he was confirmed 87 to nine. supreme court justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. perhaps most notably in the united states versus nixon,

three nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. judge kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. he has stated that marbury versus madison, and the united states versus nixon are some of the greatest supreme court cases in history. what did he have in common? each of them is a case where congress served as a check on presidential power. i would note that the fourth case judge kavanaugh has pointed to as one of the greatest in history was brown versus the board of education. 0ne kavanaugh decision illustrates the point to bring the check on

presidential power directly. he wrote the opinion in a case that challenges the british's military execution of 0sama bin ladin. this conviction was very important to the bush administration. but judge kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the dc circuit, by president bush and had worked in president bush's white house, ruled that the conviction was unlawful. as he explained during the hearing, we don't make decisions based on who people are order policy preferences or the moment, we people are order policy preferences orthe moment, we base people are order policy preferences or the moment, we base decisions on the law. others i've met with have

expressed concerns that justice kennedy's retirement threatens the right of same—sex couples to marry. yet, judge kavanaugh described the decision which legalised same gender marriages as an important landmark precedent. he also cited justice kennedy's recent masterpiece cake shop opinion for the court's majority, stating that, the days of treating gay and lesbian americans ora treating gay and lesbian americans or a gay treating gay and lesbian americans ora gay and treating gay and lesbian americans or a gay and lesbian couples as second—class citizens who are inferior in dignity are over in the supreme court. others have suggested that the judge called extreme views on birth control. in one case, judge kavanaugh incurred the disfavour of

both sides of the political spectrum first seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimising the involvement of employers with religious objections. although his critics frequently overlooked this point, judge kavanaugh's dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception. in fact, he wrote that he supreme court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control. there has also been a considerable focus on the future of abortion rights —based on the concern that judge kavanaugh would seek to overturn roe vs wade.

protecting this right is important to me. to my knowledge, judge kavanaugh is the first supreme court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition but rooted in article three of our constitution itself. he believes that president is notjust a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to roles of precedent. in other words, attention and pay heed to roles of precedent. in otherwords, president isn't a goal or an aspiration, it is a constitutional tenant that has to be followed, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. the judge further explained that

president provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. there are, of course, rare and extraordinary times were the supreme court would rightly overturn a precedent. the most famous example was when the supreme court in brown versus the board of education overruled and collected a grievously wrong decision to use the judge's turn, allowing racial inequality. but someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the constitution would follow long established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong all deeply inconsistent with the

law. those are judge kavanaugh's phrases. as the judge asserted to me, it is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded or overlooked. its roots in the constitution gives the concept of... it cannot be trimmed or narrowed simply because the judge might want to on simply because the judge might want toona simply because the judge might want to on a whim. in short, his views on honouring precedent would preclude attempts by stealth that which one has committed not to do. noting that roe vs wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later, in planned parenthood versus kc, i asked judge kavanaugh whether the

passage of time is relevant to the following precedent. he said decisions become part of other legal framework with the passage of time and that honouring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. every discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the supreme court relied in griswold versus connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraception is. griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. in describing griswold as settled law, judge kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. finally,

in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that roe had been upheld by planned parenthood versus casey, describing it as president on precedent. when i asked him, would it be sufficient to overturn a long established precedent is five currentjustices believed established precedent is five current justices believed that established precedent is five currentjustices believed that it was wrongly decided? he emphatically said no. opponents frequently cite donald trump's campaign pledge to nominate onlyjudges who would overturn roe. the republican platform for all presidential campaigns have included this pledge since at least 1980. during this time, presidents, republican presidents, have appointed justices

o'connor, and kennedy, to the supreme court. these are the very free justices, republican president appointed justices, who offered the decision which reaffirmed roe. further role, pro—choice groups vigorously oppose each of these justices nominations. incredibly, the even circulated buttons with the slogan stop suitor or women will die. just two years later, justice souter co—authored the casey opinion, reaffirming a woman's right to choose. suffice to say, prominent advocacy organisations have been wrong. they same interest groups

have speculated that judge wrong. they same interest groups have speculated thatjudge kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative idiom logs despite his re cord conservative idiom logs despite his record ofjudicial conservative idiom logs despite his record of judicial independence. conservative idiom logs despite his record ofjudicial independence. i ask the judge point—blank whether he had made any commitments are pledges to anyone at the white house, to the federalist society, to any outside group. on how he would decide cases. he unequivocally assured me that he had not. judge kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12 year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament. the american bar association it gave him its highest possible rating. it's standing committee on the federaljudiciary conducted an extraordinarily furrow

assessment soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. they concluded that his integrity, itjudicial temperament and professional confidence met the highest standards. lisa black who has argued more cases before the supreme court than any other women in history testified, quote, by any objective measure, judge kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the supreme court. his opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair. miss black, who is an ardent admirer ofjustice ginsburg and who is in her own words and unapologetic defender of a woman's right to choose, says that judge kavanaugh fits within the

mainstream of legal thought. she also observed thatjudge kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession. that judge kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and chiefjudge garland voted the same way in 93% of the cases that they heard together. chiefjudge garland joined chief judge garland joined in chiefjudge garland joined in more than 96% of the majority opinions offered byjudge than 96% of the majority opinions offered by judge kavanaugh, dissenting only once. despite all this, after weeks of reviewing judge kavanaugh's record, and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the

senate's advice and consent was thrown into a tailspin, following the allegations of sexual assault by professor christine. the confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not judge and lied about it to the judiciary committee. some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that this be resolved against the nominee. others see the public interest as embodied in ourlong see the public interest as embodied in our long established tradition of affording to those accused of miss conduct a presumption of innocence.

in cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favour of the nominee. mr president, i understand both viewpoints. this debate is contributed further by the fa ct debate is contributed further by the fact that the senate confirmation process is not a trial. but certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence and fairness, do there on my thinking and i cannot abandon them. in evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. we must always remember that it is

when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most injeopardy. the presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee's otherwise exemplary record. i worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward. some of the allegations levied against a judge kavanaugh allegations levied against a judge kava naugh illustrates why allegations levied against a judge kavanaugh illustrates why the presumption of innocence is so important. i presumption of innocence is so important. lam presumption of innocence is so important. i am thinking in particular, not of the allegations raised by professor christine blasey

ford, but of the allegation that when he was a teenager, judge kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their week —— their week state to facilitate gang rape. this outlandish allegation was put forward without any credible support and evidence, simply parroting public statements. such an allegation can find its way into the supreme court confirmation process, this is a stark reminder of why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in ouramerican consciousness. mr president, i listened carefully to christine blasey ford's testimony before the

judiciary committee. i found her testimony to be sincere, painful and compelling. i believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering when she says the assault occurred. none of the people at the party have any recollection at all of that night. judge kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. markjudge

the allegations under penalty of perjury. mark judge denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. markjudge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. pj smith, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there. this was under penalty of felony. professor ford's lifelong friend indicated that under penalty of felony, she does not remember that party. this friend went further, indicating that not only does she not remembera night indicating that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know brett kavanaugh. in addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some are facts that raise other issues. since these allegations became public, professor

ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say, i was at the party that night. furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed, yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one who drove her home are aware in the car with her home are aware in the car with her that night. and professor ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six people abruptly and without saying goodbye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left, is she 0k? not even to ask why she left, is she 0k? not even her closest friend. mr

president, the constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. it leaves that decision up to each senator. this is not a criminal trial and i do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved. not beyond a reasonable doubt. nevertheless. fairness would dictate that the claims should at least meet a threshold of more likely than not, as our standard. the facts presented do not mean that professor ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead

me to conclude that the allegations failed to mean the more likely than not standard. therefore, i do not believe that these charges can fairly preventjudge believe that these charges can fairly prevent judge kavanaugh from serving on the court. let me emphasise that my approach to this question should not be misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact as suggesting that unwanted sexual co nta ct of as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is not a serious problem in this country. to the contrary, if any good at all has come from this ugly confirmation process, it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the pervasiveness of this terrible problem. i have been

alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless judge kavanaugh's nomination is rejected, the senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. nothing could be further from the truth. every person, man or a woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault, deserves to be heard and treated with respect. the metoo movement is real, it matters, it is needed and it is long overdue. we know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault. on average, an estimated 211,000 rapes

and sexual assaults go unreported every year. we must listen to survivors and every day, we must seek to stop the criminal behaviour that has hurt so many. we owe this to ourselves, our children and generations to come. since the hearing, i have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. many we re survivors of sexual assault. many were total strangers who told me their heart wrenching stories for their heart wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. some we re the first time in their lives. some were friends that i had known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman, who had confided in me years ago, i had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks. i am grateful for their

courage and their willingness to come forward and i hope that in heightening public awareness, they have also lightened the burden that they have been quietly burying for so many years. to them, i pledge to do all that i can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences. over the past few weeks, i have been emphatic that the senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. i called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both professor ford and judge kavanaugh. ialso hear from both professor ford and judge kavanaugh. i also push for and

support the fbi's background investigation. this was the right thing to do. christine blasey ford never thing to do. christine blasey ford never sought the spotlight. she indicated that she was terrified to appear before the senate judiciary committee and she has shunned attention since then. she seemed completely and aware of the chairman's offered to allow her to testify confidentially in california. watching her, mr president, i could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineerthe that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well—being. nomination cared little, if at all,

for her well— being. professor nomination cared little, if at all, for her well—being. professor ford testified that a very limited number of people had access to her letter. yet that letter found its way into the public domain. she testified that she never gave permission for that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released. yet, here we are. we are in the middle of a fight that she never in the middle of a fight that she never sort, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially. one thing i've heard repeatedly is that one of our colleagues leaked professor ford's letter at the 11th hour to derail this process. i want to state this very clearly, i know that this senator —— i know at this senator very well. i believe that she would

never very well. i believe that she would never do this. i knew that to be the case before she even stated it at the hearing. she is a person of integrity and i stand by her. i have also heard some argue that the chairman of the committee somehow treated professor ford and fairly. nothing could be further from the truth. the terror man, along with his excellent staff, treated professor ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. that is the way the senator from iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime, dedicated to public service. but the fact remains, mr president, someone leaked this